Aw, fuck it...Let's Start Another IMCT Brawl!!!!!

[Dr. Medulla]

I meant what had become seen as desirable in the culture of the time—e.g., conspicuous wealth and consumption, govt getting out of the way of the marketplace, free trade.

Oh, you mean the worst parts.

Ultimately, yes. But I think my point is valid (or at least defensible) that Clinton's willingness to accept the political tides of the time and modify them as best he could kept the Democrats relevant when sticking with the New Deal/Great Society script would have kept them out of power. I was very disillusioned by what Clinton did at the time (being more naively idealistic and hopeful at the time) but I realize the necessities of such tactics even if I find them personally unattractive.

[Wolter]

I was very disillusioned by what Clinton did at the time (being more naively idealistic and hopeful at the time)

I guess I lucked out on that.

In 1992 I was 16 and apolitical, so I didn't expect anything from or care anything about Clinton.

In 1996 I was 20 and a Kropotkinite, so I hated every candidate pretty much equally.

[Flex]

Ultimately, yes. But I think my point is valid (or at least defensible) that Clinton's willingness to accept the political tides of the time and modify them as best he could kept the Democrats relevant when sticking with the New Deal/Great Society script would have kept them out of power. I was very disillusioned by what Clinton did at the time (being more naively idealistic and hopeful at the time) but I realize the necessities of such tactics even if I find them personally unattractive.

If power for power's sake is what's important, I guess it's fine. But it seems like he sold out on the most fundamentally important stuff (what you just mentioned) and made some kind of halfassed platitudes towards the Left with the rest but didn't really do anything aggressively progressive. If that's what it takes to win, why even bother?

I'm a firm believer in compromise, but at a certain point you have to live and die by some principles. I never got the sense that Clinton had any of those.

[Spiff]

I'm a firm believer in compromise, but at a certain point you have to live and die by some principles. I never got the sense that Clinton had any of those.

Right! Did you see that fat bird he was shagging?

[Flex]

Right! Did you see that fat bird he was shagging?

I meant, like, actual principles... not the crap the Republicans were on about.

[Dr. Medulla]

If power for power's sake is what's important, I guess it's fine. But it seems like he sold out on the most fundamentally important stuff (what you just mentioned) and made some kind of halfassed platitudes towards the Left with the rest but didn't really do anything aggressively progressive. If that's what it takes to win, why even bother?

I'm a firm believer in compromise, but at a certain point you have to live and die by some principles. I never got the sense that Clinton had any of those.

If it keeps the Democrats relevant enough that they can wait out the political tides, it makes some sense. Do you get to Obama (assuming you think he's a good thing) if the Democrats pick an unbending guy in '92? This is what I think some of the more perceptive Republicans realize about the current mindset—if they don't start going along with Obama, albeit reshaping his vision to their own values, they risk being swept away for over a generation. Sometimes you have to tread water for a while. I think that's what Clinton was doing. (Or at least when I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.)

[Flex]

If it keeps the Democrats relevant enough that they can wait out the political tides, it makes some sense. Do you get to Obama (assuming you think he's a good thing) if the Democrats pick an unbending guy in '92? This is what I think some of the more perceptive Republicans realize about the current mindset—if they don't start going along with Obama, albeit reshaping his vision to their own values, they risk being swept away for over a generation. Sometimes you have to tread water for a while. I think that's what Clinton was doing. (Or at least when I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.)

I think we got to Obama partly because the Dems were so marginalized they didn't get much of the blame for the current various crises (even if they should have). If the Repubs had been dominant throughout the 90s we might not have gotten Obama but we may have gotten Gore.

[Dr. Medulla]

If it keeps the Democrats relevant enough that they can wait out the political tides, it makes some sense. Do you get to Obama (assuming you think he's a good thing) if the Democrats pick an unbending guy in '92? This is what I think some of the more perceptive Republicans realize about the current mindset—if they don't start going along with Obama, albeit reshaping his vision to their own values, they risk being swept away for over a generation. Sometimes you have to tread water for a while. I think that's what Clinton was doing. (Or at least when I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.)

I think we got to Obama partly because the Dems were so marginalized they didn't get much of the blame for the current various crises (even if they should have). If the Repubs had been dominant throughout the 90s we might not have gotten Obama but we may have gotten Gore.

Whereas I'm not convinced that the anti-GOP forces wouldn't have splintered altogether, never coalescing into a coherent force that could elect a Democrat again. What's amazing about Clinton's success is that it was at the high point of Reaganism. The 80s were still part of the building wave—it crested in the 90s.

[Flex]

Whereas I'm not convinced that the anti-GOP forces wouldn't have splintered altogether, never coalescing into a coherent force that could elect a Democrat again. What's amazing about Clinton's success is that it was at the high point of Reaganism. The 80s were still part of the building wave—it crested in the 90s.

I don't think it's that amazing. The Reaganites basically co-opted the Dems for a decade+ starting in the early 90s. Why shouldn't they have been able to play ball? They were following the same economic script as Republicans at the time.

If he had put forth a progressive economic agenda and then been successful, that would have been amazing.

And, in the 2006 and 2008 elections, I think part of the success was that the older Dems forces did actually splinter post-'04 and the left got a chance to rebuild from the ground up.

You gotta dynamite the coalition and restart every decade or so, methinks.

Addendum: Basically, to me, I think Clinton's economic policies have aged very poorly over time and the political strategy of "triangulation" has as well. The latter, especially, embodies a lot of what people hate so much about politics.

[JennyB]

I was very disillusioned by what Clinton did at the time (being more naively idealistic and hopeful at the time)

I guess I lucked out on that.

In 1992 I was 16 and apolitical, so I didn't expect anything from or care anything about Clinton.

In 1996 I was 20 and a Kropotkinite, so I hated every candidate pretty much equally.

For a second I thought you said Kaputnikite and was wondering what Mad Magazine had to do with anything.

[Flex]

For a second I thought you said Kaputnikite and was wondering what Mad Magazine had to do with anything.

I read that initially as "kryptonite" and wondered why he was fucking with Superman.

[Dr. Medulla]

Whereas I'm not convinced that the anti-GOP forces wouldn't have splintered altogether, never coalescing into a coherent force that could elect a Democrat again. What's amazing about Clinton's success is that it was at the high point of Reaganism. The 80s were still part of the building wave—it crested in the 90s.

I don't think it's that amazing. The Reaganites basically co-opted the Dems for a decade+ starting in the early 90s. Why shouldn't they have been able to play ball? They were following the same economic script as Republicans at the time.

If he had put forth a progressive economic agenda and then been successful, that would have been amazing.

That would have been miraculous. By playing ball with the Republicans, who controlled the dominant political culture of the time, they managed to stay with the flow enough to be competitive. Not dominant, but competitive.

And, in the 2006 and 2008 elections, I think part of the success was that the older Dems forces did actually splinter post-'04 and the left got a chance to rebuild from the ground up.

You gotta dynamite the coalition and restart every decade or so, methinks.

Easier said than done, I think. That is, attaining power has its own addictive qualities and no one wants to be the one to remove the linchpin of success. But in principle I agree with you—circumstances should never be subservient to ideology, so let the make up of the coalition shift constantly.

Addendum: Basically, to me, I think Clinton's economic policies have aged very poorly over time and the political strategy of "triangulation" has as well. The latter, especially, embodies a lot of what people hate so much about politics.

I agree all around. Triangulation is a useful tactic but only as an occasional tactic, not as a long-term strategy. In the wider view, the Clinton years turning out the way they did was a good thing for me personally as it made me more jaundiced towards all politics. I don't feel as burned by it any more. There are going to be a lot of Obama supporters realizing that in a few years time.

[Rat Patrol]

LINEAR FLOWING DISCUSSIONS MAKE BABY JESUS'S ANUS BLEED PROFUSELY.

Ketchup!

Catsup!

Ketchup!

Catsup!

Ketchup!

[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

[Spiff]

LINEAR FLOWING DISCUSSIONS MAKE BABY JESUS'S ANUS BLEED PROFUSELY.

Mission accomplished.